Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 08:31:44 AM
That's another false dichotomy. I am both the body and the consciousness.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 09:11:28 AM
I did not say you weren't, both options included body and consciousness. It's like a box of matches: It is necessary to have the box, the matches, etc., but the important thing is fire. For me the body is a shadow of consciousness. I just said that in order to give you and people something to think about. If you are a body who has counsciousness, then the end is the body and counsciousness is there to protect it. If you are a counsciousness who has a body, the body is just means to counsciousness. This question was not made by me, I just used it.

Anyway, I admit not being the greatest philosopher or logical thinker, that's why I like to post other people's articles that I agree with.

I would like the discussion to be about the philosophical points the article makes, now.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 10:08:16 AM
I would like the discussion to be about the philosophical points the article makes, now.
It makes none. Philosophical points are ones deduced through observation or induced through logical reasoning. At the very least they are argued rhetorically. This article simply misinterprets a rather easily-worded book (The God Delusion) and takes it from there.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 10:40:14 AM
From the point of view that we and reality are not projected, that there is no intrinsic purpose to us, what would be the difference (besides the differences you feel on your mind, wich cannot be proved by science) of Wise following the path of rational thinking or the bible?

Any reason you give, in my opinion, must necessairly be extra-physical. No reason you can give can be proved by science. If you say it would be for the common good to serve people with the knowledge, I say from the point of view of materialism there is no reason to serve the common good.... if you don't want to.

If you say he should follow the common good because it is the rational path, I say from the point of view of materialism, there is no reason to follow the rational path. From the point of view of DNA, it is actually better that he distances more and more from reality, thus being more near to getting killed and removed from the gene pool for having irrational beliefs. But that of course is the point of view of the DNA, wich has no validity whatsoever also. It was not projected: We just have the illusion that it was projected so the point the DNA makes is not valid either.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 11:36:38 AM
Are you really asking for science to provide answers to questions of morality?

And then, when you are disappointed by the cold pragmatism of science, you say that this is proof enough for intelligent design?

Really? You're being that guy, huh?

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 12:03:08 PM
Are you really asking for science to provide answers to questions of morality?

Why not? It's all matter anyway.

And then, when you are disappointed by the cold pragmatism of science, you say that this is proof enough for intelligent design?

Really? You're being that guy, huh?


No. The point of the topic all along was to talk about the fact that dawkins may be irrational. Creationism was brought up by another member, in trying to justify why he hasn't even read the link.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 12:33:41 PM
As far as the morality thing is concerned:

there is no function of humans which recognises and interprets, either consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously, a morality exterior to the self.  This suggests that there is no such thing as an "objective morality", and that, even if such a thing existed, it would not be recognisable as such by humans.  Read J.L. Mackie for more on this.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, his distaste for "religion" as a whole is, as far as I understand it, both irrational and misplaced, as he hasn't even looked at the more esoteric forms of "religion", many of which inform modern "science" as this "science" splits from "religion".

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 12:40:28 PM
Are you really asking for science to provide answers to questions of morality?

Why not? It's all matter anyway.

Disclaimer: Science(tm) merely explains how the universe functions. Do not ask Science(tm) questions with regards to good and evil, what is beyond the universe, life after death, what you should do with your life, why all liberals are gay, or why that penis in your bum gives you that warm fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 12:42:16 PM
This is where the term "science" is a bit of a misnomer, and why philosophy is necessary.  Dawknis's problem is that he's not a philosopher in the slightest.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 12:50:20 PM
As far as Dawkins is concerned, his distaste for "religion" as a whole is, as far as I understand it, both irrational and misplaced, as he hasn't even looked at the more esoteric forms of "religion", many of which inform modern "science" as this "science" splits from "religion".
Dawkins clearly uses religion as a marketing platform from which to sell his hard science. Look at his work on memes, and the various head-to-head TV appearances with religious nutbars. In one he used a classic creationist delusion as an argument for evolution, saying: "Well, you might not be able to see evolution, or touch evolution, but I know that it's there". He is essentially trolling the God community because he knows that returned fire is guaranteed, and the media focus is sustained.



Only misplaced arrogance would allow a member of a message board to believe that he is better placed than a paid-up full time researcher and thinker like Dawkins to comment on these issues. He has the benefit of being paid a salary to read, plus access to some of the greatest bodies of research in the world every time he goes in to work. Two things that none of us - with our everyday demands like having jobs - have the luxury of.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
Are you really asking for science to provide answers to questions of morality?

Why not? It's all matter anyway.

Disclaimer: Science(tm) merely explains how the universe functions. Do not ask Science(tm) questions with regards to good and evil, what is beyond the universe, life after death, what you should do with your life, why all liberals are gay, or why that penis in your bum gives you that warm fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach.

The whole point of the article is that dawkins, by his statements about the geologist, entered the metaphyisical territory, thus contradicting his non-belief in it. Anyway I'm done with you, because I really detest disrespect in conversations.


Only misplaced arrogance would allow a member of a message board to believe that he is better placed than a paid-up full time researcher and thinker like Dawkins to comment on these issues. He has the benefit of being paid a salary to read, plus access to some of the greatest bodies of research in the world every time he goes in to work. Two things that none of us - with our everyday demands like having jobs - have the luxury of.

Cargest talked about dawkins and religion. Of course dawkins knows more than us in biology and other sciences. But not about religion and esoterism.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 01:08:27 PM
Cargest talked about dawkins and religion. Of course dawkins knows more than us in biology and other sciences. But not about religion and esoterism.
Well, granted, I am a level 12 wizard (I am them) and my knowledge of esoterica is great. But even so... I think he probably does know more about religious matters than anybody on this board.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 01:10:51 PM
What religious matters?  I'm sure he knows a lot more about fundamentalism, but I severely doubt that he's invested much time in reading much into Eastern religious traditions, European mythology, the spiritual aspects of indigenous cultures the world over, etc. ad nauseam.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 01:15:29 PM
I severely doubt that he's invested much time in reading much into Eastern religious traditions, European mythology, the spiritual aspects of indigenous cultures the world over, etc. ad nauseam.

Even though he has chosen religious topics as the basis for his recent publicity stunts? Well if you're right, he at least has the balls to troll hard.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 28, 2011, 03:03:10 PM
You're a level 12 wizard in esoterica? What the hell is that???

And about dawkins and religion, are you kidding me? That guy knows nothing about religion.

Another article about dawkins from a critic point of view:

http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2007/05/being-for-benefit-of-people-who-want-to.html